description

we thank you very much for your willingness to take part. Your contributions will help us to make better recommendations on how the EU Strategy for the Danube Region can be better brought to life.

Below you can find a series of statements which came out of focus groups (moderator-led discussions) with representatives from all the countries of the Danube Region. We would like to ask you to vote on the statements by clicking on the respective icons on the right of the statements. We would be especially happy if you could also comment on the statements or make further suggestion. Besides you, we invited a series of other experts. We hope that from your comments and those from the other participants a lively discussion will arise.

The statements below refer mainly to the catching-up countries of the Danube Region which are basically the non-German speaking countries. Thus, if you encounter terms like “the countries” or “the eastern countries” then this refers to the non-German speaking area of the Danube Region.

The statements are summarised in five broad sections. The first relates to the problems with project identification and implementation. In the second criteria for projects are mentioned and the third covers comments on the EUSDR in general. Then we also have extracted thematic fields and concrete projects from the focus group (Section 4 and 5).

You will note that the statements are not necessarily consistent. This is intended in order to present the different views for the specific topic.

P1

P2

The public administration/the government wants to regulate a lot of things and to have hands on them but it is not efficient. In particular, the public administration is inefficient in spending EU funds.

P3

The governments invent a lot of strategies but fail to implement them. The strategies have little or nothing to do with each other. Also, different governmental agencies are not very much connected with each other although they deal with related topics. A lot of energy is wasted because no prioritisation takes place.

P5

Reliability is missing. Very often, after each election often the people in large parts of the administration are replaced. Also, there is an insufficient knowledge flow between the different “generations” of officials across the election periods. This means for the people in the administration that they do not have the incentive to develop middle or long-term visions and for externals that contact persons change regularly and with them also priorities.

P6

The willingness of commitment to a project is low when money has to be invested. E.g., responsible persons often shy away from signing contracts for feasibility studies when this means that own funds have to be put in.

P7

The planning period for the national budget is often very short (e.g., only one year). This makes it difficult to develop and implement long-term projects because the project leaders cannot be sure whether the funding will continue in the next fiscal year.

P12

Lack of trust between different agents (businessmen, institutions, administration, government, …) is a major obstacle for the successful implementation of projects. This leads to that not enough cooperation takes place.

P14

P15

Lack of business skills in the population. This includes the lack of ability to identify viable business opportunities, the lack of knowledge how to grow a business, and the ability to run and manage a business.

P16

The image of successful business men is bad. If someone runs successfully a business the suspicion is that his/her success is based mainly on good connections to the political elite. In addition, the general view appears to be that success in the business world can only come about by dubious methods.